Cartoonist Draws Crucified Children, Blames NRA

Cartoonist Draws Crucified Children, Blames NRA

Cartoonist Draws Crucified Children, Blames NRA

The Louisville Courier-Journal cartoonist thinks he’s so edgy and provoking. Marc Murphy, a self-described trial lawyer and editorial cartoonist (per his Twitter biography), decided to try blaming the NRA for the shooting deaths of children in his editorial cartoon Sunday night, which was published on Monday in the newspaper. The NRA convention is coming to Louisville this week, and Murphy decided to draw a picture about his opinion.

Editorial cartoon via Twitter, published in the Louisville Courier-Journal on Monday, May 16, 2016
Editorial cartoon via Twitter, published in the Louisville Courier-Journal on Monday, May 16, 2016
Why, how EDGY! How BRAVE! How DONE BEFORE! Seriously, you’d think that Marc Murphy could be smidge more original in his editorializing.

Now, that’s not to say that his cartoon isn’t crass and disgusting. The last I checked, the NRA promoted gun safety and education for children, not their deaths.

But hey, never let facts stand in the way of a political cheap shot, right?

And when challenged, Murphy takes the snotty trial lawyer route.


Because no one ever stole a car and killed a child, right?

But really, what can you expect from a predictable left-wing lawyer who can draw?


And doesn’t like guns.


And he seems to like to use cross imagery to further his own point. Often.


Never expect intellectual curiosity or honesty from someone who gets their kicks out of complaining about what they dislike in pictures, and then demands to be treated seriously because he calls himself an “editorial cartoonist.”

Written by

8 Comments
  • Mike says:

    I suppose Marc Murphy received his thirty pieces of silver to look the other way in heavily gun controlled Chicago?

  • millard fillmore says:

    Well,a GOOD lawyer wouldn’t have time for slack-jawed pontification with a child’s drawing set,would he?

  • GWB says:

    As soon as they stop requiring drivers’ licenses and the registration of the cars. And speed limits.

    First, registration of cars has ZERO to do with safety, and everything to do with taxes.
    Second, how would you handle “speed limits” on guns? You mean you couldn’t fire at the bad guys more than 30 rounds in 1 minute in a residential area without facing a fine?
    (Connecting it to magazine capacity or full-auto capability is idiotic, since you’re allowed to own a Ferrari that will top 200mph, you’re just not allowed to drive it that fast on most streets. If it will go 0-to-60 in 1 second, you’re allowed to do that – if the speed limit is 60.)
    Third, I don’t have a problem with requiring some range time and a class (safety and proper operation) for you to exercise your rights. And, just like driver’s ed, it should be in our schools (preferably middle school), so they can start exercising their rights as soon as possible.
    (BTW, I think you should be required to show your proficiency at driving MUCH more often than you currently do. And it should be done in a simulator that can put you through your paces in dangerous situations. And if you drive slow in the left lane you should have your license revoked for 5 years.)

  • Petercat says:

    Well, my daughter bought her pickup truck when she was 14.
    She drove it on private property, legally, without an adult present, with no speed limit other than her own judgment.
    She got licensed to take it anywhere, even to school and the Post Office, when she was sixteen. Loaded with a full fuel tank. Out in the open, where anyone could see it.
    Yeah, let’s treat guns like cars.

  • BikerDad says:

    Third, I don’t have a problem with requiring some range time and a class (safety and proper operation) for you to exercise your rights.

    I do have a problem with it. While I certainly believe that everybody SHOULD be trained in the use of their weapons, I absolutely oppose the notion that such training should be a requirement. It is a RIGHT. The last time Democrats tied the exercise of a right to gov’t evaluated competence test, we had poll tests. Is that a road you want to go down again?

    • GWB says:

      I think privately obtained/administered classes are fine (as most states have to exercise a concealed carry option). It would be a fine equivalent to the cost for a class to not be able to show that you’ve had one. And getting the training is easy and cheap in most places (the ones that aren’t trying to take away your 2A rights, anyway).

      (BTW, go read the bits on bearingarms.com about some of the stupidity of the left end of the bell curve of legal carriers. I don’t know if any of them had training, but if it did, it certainly didn’t show. I detest the gov’t as a necessary evil, but insisting [perhaps after the fact] that they at least have to sit through the training before they ignore it is not a bad idea to me.)

      As to “poll taxes” I’ve been back and forth on the idea of proving you can at least spell “democratic republic” before you vote in one. Of course, that’s because I think the vast majority of voters out there are idiots (proof = 0bama being re-elected). That doesn’t make for a moral case to make it so.

      • GWB says:

        Another way to handle this is simply to make it an element of a damages lawsuit. If you can show that you weren’t negligent (by doing things like taking classes) then you can’t be held liable. If you’re an idiot, then someone can sue your socks off. (Hopefully you’re not carrying your gun in yours.)

  • Kat says:

    Good grief! Christians don’t want to PUNISH gays!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram
Instagram has returned invalid data.